Policy —

AT&T, have you no shame?

Inside the company's customer-enraging plan to limit FaceTime.

Bob Quinn, one of the top AT&T lobbyists ("Senior Vice President-Federal Regulatory") in a company famous for lobbyists, must have drawn the short straw at the office staff meeting this week, because he got a truly unenviable job. Quinn's task was to explain to the world how AT&T's plan to keep blocking FaceTime video chats on some data plans but to unblock it on others was a good thing for customers, how AT&T was in "a learning mode," and—most importantly—why the decision was absolutely, completely legal despite what the unwashed peasants in "public advocacy" work would have you believe.

So Quinn walked down the hall to the closet next to the photocopier and pulled out something reserved for just such an occasion: the company's sole suit of adamantine armor, fortified against flame attacks by a special concoction distilled from the rage of 10,000 Internet commenters. (We are, admittedly, hypothesizing a bit at this point.) Bold Sir Quinn donned the suit and sallied forth to his desk, where he sharpened his quill pen and churned out a corporate blog post on "enabling" FaceTime for AT&T users.

In it, Quinn pointed out that AT&T's serfs customers could continue to use FaceTime over WiFi. With iOS 6, they can soon use FaceTime over the cell network, too, but only with certain data plans. On other plans, FaceTime wouldn't work. The restrictions apply only to FaceTime, however; Quinn even suggests that aggrieved users go out and download any other video chat app from the App Store—and they can run it on any data plan without problems.

The distinctions being drawn seem bizarre and arbitrary to many customers who argue that data is data—I paid for it and should control what I use it on, not AT&T. It's even stranger because AT&T isn't targeting "video chat" apps with its restriction; it is only targeting FaceTime.

What is going on here?

She canna handle the data, Captain!

Essentially, AT&T is counting on customer ignorance/laziness to save it from a data glut. The company knows that most cell phone users will favor the pre-installed apps, possibly adding a few more like Angry Birds, but largely not going out of their way to test and use other video chat apps (which generally require the people at the other end of the line to have the same app installed).

So the company can be generous when it comes to "downloaded" apps, but it fears that tearing down the wall around something like FaceTime would simply create too much data to handle. As Quinn finally admits near the end of the post, the decision is all about AT&T's "overriding concern for the impact this expansion may have on our network and the overall customer experience." Translation: we're afraid it would melt our network.

So much for the argument; the real question is, "Can this be legal?" The main thrust of Quinn's post was that it is legal because AT&T told people what it planned to do in advance. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in what was widely considered a weaker than weak-tea "open Internet" order in late 2010, did mandate transparency around network management—which is why AT&T had to announce the policy in the first place.

"Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary," wrote Quinn. "There is no transparency issue here."

"Ah," protest the serfs, gathering around the baronial estate with pitchforks in hand, "but even under the open Internet order AT&T can't just block apps, right? This is an outrage!"

But the anger just serves to remind us how weak the rules are; blocking apps is indeed just fine... with one notable exception.

The rules

One of the ironies of FCC rulemaking is that, under Republican leadership generally hostile to the idea of legally enforced net neutrality, the FCC actually passed a 2005 "policy statement" (PDF) outlining four freedoms all Internet users could expect. Number three read:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

The principles were all subject to "reasonable network management," but it soon became clear that throttling or blocking particular apps didn't qualify as "reasonable." The FCC soon went after Comcast for BitTorrent interference and forced the company to change its ways (Comcast adopted a much improved system that focused on the heaviest local users at periods of actual, local congestion, rather than picking apps or protocols to burn at the stake.) Under this regime, which applied to wireless and wired networks, AT&T's current FaceTime monkey business would have violated the rules.

But Comcast sued the FCC over the issue and won, arguing that the policy statement had never been a set of "rules" and that the FCC wouldn't have the authority to make such rules anyway. So, under a Democratic FCC led by someone who promised to implement net neutrality rules, the agency adopted a strangely bifurcated order (PDF) that applied some of the same principles to wired networks—but gave wireless a huge pass (start reading at paragraph 93 for the wireless rules).

Although the FCC's final order said things like, "there is one Internet, which should remain open for consumers and innovators alike, although it may be accessed through different technologies and services," it actually let wireless operators do just about anything they liked, including blocking most apps.

The FCC did carve out one restriction on blocking apps, however: companies can't do so to squelch competition. Here's the official rule:

A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.

The FCC concerns behind the rule aren't theoretical; wireless operators like KPN, the incumbent telco in the Netherlands, have already blocked apps like WhatsApp (an instant messaging app) and Skype on the straightforward reasoning that these apps are bad for business by replacing texting and voice calls that might otherwise rack up separate fees. (The blocking was so egregious that the Netherlands passed the world's second net neutrality law in response.)

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, smiling as he ponders new ways to delight his customers.

AT&T

AT&T insists that FaceTime doesn't compete with its own services. As Quinn put it, "AT&T does not have a similar preloaded video chat app that competes with FaceTime or any other preloaded video chat application."

And at this point, suddenly, we have entered Lawyer Land, where the construction of sentences matters far more than everyone but your grade school grammar teacher (remember "diagramming"?) ever thought it would. The order prohibits AT&T from blocking apps that compete with its own "voice or video telephony services." AT&T wants to interpret this as saying it would only apply to an AT&T video app, but that's not what the rule actually says. One could certainly make the case that FaceTime in fact competes with even AT&T's basic voice chat service (Quinn wants to talk about "apps," which AT&T doesn't have, but the order is talking about "services").

Public Knowledge makes this exact argument: "Many people use apps like FaceTime, Skype, and ooVoo instead of making voice calls. In many respects these apps are more convenient than traditional calling. And by using these apps, consumers can save money on international calling charges, conference call services, and in other ways. There's no doubt that these apps are a competitive threat to AT&T's voice service."

Free Press is just as upset, writing, "Though it’s trying its best to hide it, the truth is that AT&T’s motivation here is to prop up its slowly declining voice and text revenue streams, which are expensive services that the open internet is making obsolete. If AT&T can weaken the FCC’s Net Neutrality protections at the same time, well that’s a bonus. The decision to block FaceTime likely will not be the last anti-consumer thing AT&T attempts as it tries to reassert its control over the communications ecosystem that the open Internet pried away long ago."

But what if AT&T isn't technically "blocking" anything at all?

"Blocking" vs. "exerting influence"

The language surrounding this entire issue is quite strange, with AT&T going on about how the FCC rules don't apply to "preloaded apps" (the order says nothing about preloaded apps). Apple and AT&T have in the past danced around the issue of exactly how the FaceTime restriction will be implemented—is AT&T going to block network traffic, or did it lean on Apple to make sure that traffic never even entered the network in the first place?

In the past, Apple coded its FaceTime app so as to work only over WiFi; that will now change with iOS 6. Sprint has already made clear that FaceTime will then be available to all users of its cell network, but AT&T wants to open the barn door only a crack. Perhaps it has leaned on Apple to build the barn-door-controller code into FaceTime itself, sparing AT&T the problem of trying to filter its network.

We're guessing that Apple has, in fact, gone along with this scheme, which is probably why AT&T keeps stressing that preloaded apps aren't required to do anything in particular. So long as AT&T or other carriers can convince Apple to alter its FaceTime code, the telco never actually has to get into the messy issue of identifying and blocking traffic in the first place. This helps explain what otherwise seems like an odd pair of sentences:

Although the rules don’t require it, some preloaded apps are available without charge on phones sold by AT&T, including FaceTime, but subject to some reasonable restrictions. To date, all of the preloaded video chat applications on the phones we sell, including FaceTime, have been limited to Wi-Fi.

The rules may forbid AT&T from blocking an app—but they don't require any specific app to use cell connections. So long as Apple made the change, AT&T seems to believe it's in the clear.

Either way, groups like Public Knowledge still see red.

"We don't know why Apple chose not to enable cellular FaceTime earlier," wrote John Bergmayer, a senior staff attorney. "But now that every other US iPhone carrier besides AT&T will be offering cellular FaceTime on a nondiscriminatory basis, it is reasonable to assume that AT&T's demands were holding it back for everyone. No carrier should be able to dictate to Apple or any other handset manufacturer what features they may include on their phones."

Deep packet inspection vendors have longed pitched companies like AT&T on the virtues of per-app tolls and other restrictions. From a 2010 presentation by Allot.

I've waited four years to get a smartphone because I couldn't afford AT&T, Verizon, Sprint pricing. But a nice salesperson at T-Mobile noticed I ran a business and told me about their Value plans for Business. I'm paying around $60 a month for 1000 minutes and 5 GB of data and unlimited messaging.

Never would have gotten a smartphone unless for her.

That's about $30 a month cheaper than the Big Three mentioned above and I'm getting 1000 minutes, not 900. Plus T-Mo's customer service treats me like a knowledgeable tech when I'm stuck in the middle of troubleshooting something. AT&T forces their CSR's to start at the beginning of a script and they can't deviate from it. (Probably have Imperial Stormtroopers with guns patrolling the cubicles for enforcement. I feel sorry for their CSR's.)

Lets face it. A smart phone is not a requirement of life. It could be argued that a cell phone is now a days, but I would gladly go toe to toe with you on the merits of that argument as well.

Your iPhone, and your ability to use facetime where ever you want, is not really an essential anything. (Seriously, stop trying to make it so, or now I have text messages, phone calls and facetime calls from my wife at all all bloody hours of work)

The solution is simple. Stop fucking whining away about how Evil AT&T is, and take your business elsewhere.

No other service provider where you live? Kill you contract for 3-6 months, and just make do without a cell phone, or go with a prepaid plan which will cover what you require, without guaranteeing AT&T a monthly stipend.

Otherwise, shutup. Seriously. Honestly. Why do you all care about Facetime anywhere anyways? You going to be driving and Facetiming? Need to pull off an Emergency Factime while sitting on the toilet?

Finally, can anyone predict the over night effects of the 15-17 million iPhone customers( I googled, no idea if that is 100% accurate) all suddenly facetiming for 3 days until the novelty wore off?

Verizon would like to put in a word here and remind everyone that they don't restrict what you can do with an iPhone on their network. They would also be happy to inform you that Verizon 4G LTE is now available in over 250 markets and covers almost 75% of the American population.

AT&T is such trash to begin with, if you're going to spend the money on one of the Big 2 carriers, why would you choose AT&T over Verizon in the first place? And if you don't care that much about coverage in rural areas because you're always in a major city, why haven't you switched to T-Mobile or Sprint yet? There's nothing that AT&T does better than any of the carriers, so why paying customers allow themselves to be treated like dirt by AT&T is something I still cannot fathom.

If Verizon pulled shit like this, I'd be torn as to how I should react. Though some contract finagling thanks to a head's-up from Ars as a matter of fact (thanks!), I have an unlimited 4g data plan, something that's hard to get with Verizon's network coverage. I'd probably just hack my phone and get around the limitation, the same was as I got around Big Red's bullshit tethering filter.

Say AT&T aren't a bunch of lying bastards. (I know... just bear with me.) and that unrestricted cellular Facetime would have a very negative impact on their data network's capacity. What are your options?

A) Allow it anyway, slowing EVERYONE'S data access to a crawl, when it even works at all

B) Disallow Facetime over cellular

C) Charge people more for Facetime over cellular, thus reducing its use. This assumes (justifiably so) that a fairly high percentage of people will not bother to go download apps such as Skype to replace Facetime.

D) Lower data caps per tier, charging more for the same amount of data as before (effectively (C) except in the spirit of "Data is Data")

So which do you choose?

I choose E), where AT&T takes the billions of dollars they have and use it to improve their network.

Quote:

Data may be data, but you also have to realize that if everyone with a 2GB cap actually USED 2GB per month, the whole system would be VERY overloaded.

So, you are saying that AT&T is overselling their capacity? That they are selling a service with the expectation that people don't actually use it? If they do, it's "unfair" or something?

There's many suggestions throughout the comments that if people used their 2GB all at once that the network would be overwhelmed and this is true. From what I can tell, all companies that are pipes to the internet do this because statistically speaking we don't all get on our phones at once and want to make FaceTime or Skype video calls. I don't see this as a particularly bad practice by these companies, but if the network is insufficient then they should have (emphasis on past tense) planned for this to upgrade their networks...

Herein lies the issue that I see. There are many suggestions that they need to invest heavily to support this extra data requirement by the users. The thing is... they're doing that already. They're investing in their LTE network for this purpose. I believe the hope is that they can offload a lot of this data usage onto their 4G network with the iPhone 5 or 5s/6, whichever supports LTE.

I see this whole thing as shady from the word "go" though. There was obviously collusion between Apple and AT&T to set this whole thing up. If you jailbreak and break the requirement for wifi, you can use FaceTime over 3G now and for the past few years. I've done it and it works great.

For those that are wondering why FaceTime is such a big deal. It's a built-in piece of software for video chat that actually works really well. If you have parents, siblings with iPhones, iPods, iPads, and Macs it's uber convenient because it rings them all when you have a call and with 3G you can be anywhere and have a conversation "in person". Really important when you have a young child so you can show eager grandparents half a globe away what's new. Can you do this with Skype or other similar software? Yes, but FaceTime is built-in to all of the aforementioned devices and so it's easy.

To me, it's important, and for AT&T or any other "dumb pipe" to tell me how I can and can't use the data I paid for is just ridiculous. Also, Apple shouldn't have played along. I think they probably won't in the future as they are no longer tied to AT&T. I think that fact may be why iOS 6 is getting this feature in the first place.

Just another one of the many examples that competition just does not seem to exist in telecoms anywhere in the world. These kind of things only make sense from a business perspective if the competition does the same. Since this is by far not the most efficient solution, therefore in a competitive environment this would simply destroy your company.

If you boil it down to the essentials, they are basically charging people (through more expensive data plans) for something that is free (the information itself). You would think any competitor would immediately start a campaign with: "Just get a data plan and do what you want for less!" and steal every single customer...

Hmmm, yes it would be an interesting world were networks were built to the limits of physics and the true cost was reflected in the bill. People would still complain though, "Waaa, the speed of light is too slow".

AT&T is not the only seller of the iPhone now. So as soon as their customers start to wise up and jump ship the better. AT&T will continue to pull shit like this as long as their customer base continues to allow it. I personally have never, and will never use AT&T. Even if they were the last cellular provider in the US. But the simple fact is they aren't, and they 're not the only one selling the iPhone. People have choices, unless they exercise that power of choice, this sort of shit will continue.

Not a troll, but seriously, who cares?Don't like it, switch carriers or use wifi.Not many people use facetime or video chatting overall to begin with so this seems like a rather large 'outrage' over a very niche, Apple/AT&T-only problem.

Not a troll, but seriously, who cares?Don't like it, switch carriers or use wifi.Not many people use facetime or video chatting overall to begin with so this seems like a rather large 'outrage' over a very niche, Apple/AT&T-only problem.

So again, who cares?

It does not matter how popular or unpopular the service in question is. The issue here is the principle of things. Your viewpoint is shortsighted, in the extreme.

Not a troll, but seriously, who cares?Don't like it, switch carriers or use wifi.Not many people use facetime or video chatting overall to begin with so this seems like a rather large 'outrage' over a very niche, Apple/AT&T-only problem.

So again, who cares?

It does not matter how popular or unpopular the service in question is. The issue here is the principle of things. Your viewpoint is shortsighted, in the extreme.

Isn't the time to demonstrate one's principles, is before the s...t hit's the fan, rather than latter going, hey everyone, look at my principles! *waves principles in the air for everyone to see*

Not a troll, but seriously, who cares?Don't like it, switch carriers or use wifi.Not many people use facetime or video chatting overall to begin with so this seems like a rather large 'outrage' over a very niche, Apple/AT&T-only problem.

So again, who cares?

It does not matter how popular or unpopular the service in question is. The issue here is the principle of things. Your viewpoint is shortsighted, in the extreme.

Isn't the time to demonstrate one's principles, is before the s...t hit's the fan, rather than latter going, hey everyone, look at my principles! *waves principles in the air for everyone to see*

Well, how would that work in this case? "We are going to complain about AT&T before they announce what their policy is going to be!"? I bet that these same people who are now complaining support network neutrality and wanted FaceTime to be available for all (who would be against that, really?). But they can only voice their disapproval only after AT&T announces their policy.

" Quinn pointed out that AT&T's serfs customers could continue to use FaceTime over WiFi."Aah, dude.That's very nice of you.So I'm allowed to use a service on a device that I bought on a different network that I'd also paid for?That's really generous of you.Thanks.

As much as I think AT&T huffs a **** for this, I can't use FaceTime on my VZW iPhone either (unless I'm on wifi). Is this just a 3G/4G thing?

Nope. Clothing is not a requirement of life, either, so long as one has a house. Uncensored newspapers are not a necessity of life, either, nor newspapers in general, nor books, nor freedom of assembly, nor the right to free speech. Where do you draw the line? Are you saying, like Google, another [whatever] is just a [whatever] away?" (America, love it or leave it. Google, love it or leave it. AT&T, love it or leave it. Like it or lump it.)

We could provide the services we promised, or we can blame the consumer for believing our false advertising and not reading the entire contract which was written for lawyers. Let's blame the consumer! After all, they can simply vote with their wallets, because it's that simple!

This will backfire. I say let the market decide. This presents the perfect opportunity for other carries to do the exact same opposite. I can see the tag lines already: "Sprint, because we don't care where you get your face-time on...." Consumers will soon realize what their are getting for their buck with AT&T.

Silly American, with your misguided trust in the "Market".

The market won't decide in the way you want. The other carriers won't do the opposite; why would they? Where is there an example of that happening in the cell carrier industry?

No, what will happen is Sprint will say... "Hey, wait, you can charge customers for that too? And get away with it?" and jump on the bandwagon so fast your head will spin.

This happens because it's largely impossible to get into that market due to the absurdly high entry costs.

No problem. Just use another carrier, or don't use an iPhone (which contrary to what someone else said, is not the best smartphone in the world), or if you use an iPhone just jailbreak it and bypass their restrictions. AT&T will continue to screw its customers no matter what. Furthermore Apple also had their hand into this. That's one of the things that makes this so shameful. Legal or not.

Say AT&T aren't a bunch of lying bastards. (I know... just bear with me.) and that unrestricted cellular Facetime would have a very negative impact on their data network's capacity. What are your options?

A) Allow it anyway, slowing EVERYONE'S data access to a crawl, when it even works at all

B) Disallow Facetime over cellular

C) Charge people more for Facetime over cellular, thus reducing its use. This assumes (justifiably so) that a fairly high percentage of people will not bother to go download apps such as Skype to replace Facetime.

D) Lower data caps per tier, charging more for the same amount of data as before (effectively (C) except in the spirit of "Data is Data")

So which do you choose?

I choose E), where AT&T takes the billions of dollars they have and use it to improve their network.

Quote:

Data may be data, but you also have to realize that if everyone with a 2GB cap actually USED 2GB per month, the whole system would be VERY overloaded.

So, you are saying that AT&T is overselling their capacity? That they are selling a service with the expectation that people don't actually use it? If they do, it's "unfair" or something?

You know what that is? That's bullshit!

You know that capacity is often limited by several factors:

Availability of spectrumAvailability of tower spaceAvailability of backhaul

Turning up additional carriers isn't something that just magically happens at the drop of a hat. AT&T doesn't provide all the backhaul to its own network, no carrier does. AT&T doesn't own all the towers, and every single additional tower they want to build has to go through the 90 day public comment / municipal licensing procedure. Add to that there are only so many equipment vendors in the world and right now they are getting slammed for products - there's a lead time getting the radios and base stations, as well as the antennas.

i've been trying to come up with a reason as to why they would only allow it on the shared data plan, and as best I can tell, it is this: Shared data plans are likely going to be used with families or very close friends. Therefore, they are MORE likely to Facetime each other, and it depletes the data twice as fast as a single user on a regular data plan would, and therefore they get to charge an additional 10 bucks or whatever for the overage.. Bout the only reason I can see. Because at a single users, with a decent data plan unless you used face time VERY extensively, there is not really a good chance of you going over your data cap. When you consider the fact facetime is always in pairs, and at this point an over 3g ft call would ONLY be going to another AT&T iPhone, it becomes clear they are just trying to increase their bottom line. Nice one AT&T.. However, I've been using facetime over 3g since facetime existed.. FU AT&T.

While I appreciate the storytelling and the attempt to soften the potentially boring topic of service provider policy regulations, I found that the humor and snark detracted from Ars Technica's supposed impartiality as a news outlet.

That said, it comes as no surprise that AT&T would resort to these games and tactics with its consumers. They want the consumer draw that these applications provide, they just don't want to actually pay for the resources that they consume.

Perhaps I'm lenient on Nate's writing style because he's one of the longest-running writers on this site since I've started following it. Or maybe it's because his nerd humor always makes me laugh.

Normally, I'd agree that overt displays of personality (which often leads to bias) in journalism should be discouraged. However, I find that Nate's long-form rants on topics are actually therapeutic. Generally, I've not seen him write on polarizing issues where people can claim he's obviously siding with one camp. In articles that he uses humor and snark, it's usually over issues that are fairly clear-cut (as is legally possible) on being one-sided.

As a T-Mobile customer, I'm glad I don't have to worry about these issues. During the whole merger debacle that went on, I was already looking at switching to US Cellular should AT&T have won on the buyout deal. There was no way I was going to be treated as rabble scum by a bloated corporation. I truly, truly hope that people jump ship due to this. T-Mobile I can say has always treated me fairly and I've no complaints at all on my data plan for my smartphone. (Plus, the employees of T-Mobile are pretty cool about helping people jailbreak phones to work with their network. Never applied to me, but I see it as a sales point.)